TORRENT PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. Vs. C.C.E. & S.T.-VADODARA-I
CUSTOMS EXCISE AND GOLD(CONTROL) APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
C.C.E. And S.T. -Vadodara -I
Click here to view full judgement.
H.K.THAKUR,MEMBER (T) -
(1.)THIS appeal has been filed by the appellant with respect to OIA No. Commr.(A)/13/VDR -I/2004 dated 23.01.2004 passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Vadodara as first appellate authority. Under this OIA dated 23.01.2004 first appellate authority has rejected the claim of the appellant by holding that Reversionary Authority has remanded the rebate claim of the appellant to be considered as a refund claim under Rule 173L of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.
(2.)In remand proceedings learned first appellate authority has rejected the refund claim of the appellant as time barred treating the same as refund of Rule 173L of Central Excise Rules 1944, read with Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
Sh. S.J. Vyas (Advocate) appearing on behalf of the appellant argued that the goods exported by the appellant were manufactured by M/s. Torrent Gujarat Biotech Ltd. Vadodara (TGBL) and cleared the goods under their invoice No. 1002 Dated 21.04.1998 with the remark NIL rate of duty as duty was earlier paid vide invoice No. E/230 dated 20.09.1997 on debit from RG -23C PL -II (entry No. 281 dated 20.09.1997). That between 20.09.1997 to 21.04.1998 goods were returned by TGBL under Rule 173H and repacked for final export by the appellant. It is the case of the learned advocate that Rule 173L refund claim has to be filed only by the re -manufacture of the goods returned and not by the merchant exporter. It was his case that their case was rebate of duty claimed by the merchant exporter who is not the manufacture of goods. He relied upon the case law of Bangalore CESTAT Sun -Ship Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad -I [2004 (169) E.L.T. 33 (Tri. -Bang.)].
(3.)SH . Govind Jha, (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue made the Bench go through OIO dated 06.08.2013 to argue that there is a difference in the quantity of goods brought back by TGBL for reprocessing and finally exported by appellant Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. It was his case that repacking of medicines amounts to remanufacture and that it was a case of refund under Rule 173L of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944. Learned AR thus defended the order passed by the lower authorities.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.